FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds asserts Pierre Omidyar decided to create The Intercept to not only take ownership of the Snowden leaks but also to continue his blockade against WikiLeaks and create a “honey trap” for whistleblowers.

WikiLeaks, the transparency organization known for publishing leaked documents that threaten the powerful, finds itself under pressure like never before, as does its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange. Now, the fight to silence Wikileaks is not only being waged by powerful government figures but also by the media, including outlets and organizations that have styled themselves as working to protect whistleblowers.

As this three-part series seeks to show, these outlets and organizations are being stealthily guided by the hands of special interests, not the public interest they claim to serve. Part I focuses on the Freedom of the Press Foundation, The Intercept, and the oligarch who has strongly influenced both organizations in his long-standing fight to silence WikiLeaks.

Mid-November, 2017 – The Daily Beast ran an exclusivereport detailing how the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) was set to break ties with WikiLeaks amidst concerns among the foundation’s board, which includes such well-known figures as Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, John Cusack and Glenn Greenwald, among others. The news was confirmed less than a month later when the nonprofit’s board officially voted to stop accepting U.S. donations for WikiLeaks, which had been blacklisted for years by Visa, MasterCard and PayPal after publishing leaked U.S. government documents provided by Chelsea Manning.

Even though the FPF had been founded to allow WikiLeaks to circumvent the banking blockade — which, according to WikiLeaks, sapped nearly 95% of the transparency organization’s funds — the board’s decision to end its founding mission was unanimous.

Last Monday, the FPF made it official, severing its ties with WikiLeaks, leaving it to rely on cryptocurrencies and other esoteric means of funding in order to get around the banking blockade. Journalist Trevor Timm, the FPF’s director, told WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief Julian Assange in an email that the foundation’s reason for ending the partnership was “that the financial blockade by the major payment processors is no longer in effect, and as such, we will soon cease processing donations on behalf of WikiLeaks readers.”

“The financial censorship of WikiLeaks is ongoing in various ways, as is our litigation in response,” Assange told Timm in response, adding that:

The FPF faces criticism for receiving donations on our behalf, but that is its function. If it bows to political pressure it becomes part of the problem it was designed to solve and yet another spurious free-speech organization — of which there are plenty.”

Assange had made the exchange public by publishing it on his personal Twitter, but it has since been deleted.

Indeed, the pressure against WikiLeaks has reached fever pitch, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ calling Assange’s arrest a “priority” and CIA Director Mike Pompeo labeling it a non-state hostile intelligence service. Last Thursday, former CIA analyst and whistleblower John Kiriakou stated his belief that “the Americans want Assange’s head on a platter.” All of this has followed Wikileaks’ publication of the Podesta emails and DNC leaks in 2016 prior to that year’s U.S. presidential election, as well as its more recent publication of CIA hacking secrets in the “Vault 7” and “Vault 8” releases.

Voting WikiLeaks off the investigative island

Though Timm’s explanation seemed benign enough, WikiLeaks took to Twitter to suggest that something more nefarious was behind the board’s decision to cut ties. Once the news became public, WikiLeaks and its associated accounts linked the FPF’s decision to the fact that many of its members now work for organizations financed by eBay billionaire and PayPal owner Pierre Omidyar. In addition, the FPF itself has received large sums of money from Omidyar and his various businesses and foundations.

Today, the "Freedom of Press" Foundation, which is now substantially linked to Paypal's Omidyar, has, after political pressure, decided to terminate processing of WikiLeaks' donations.

WikiLeaks, in recent tweets, has suggested that Omidyar’s influence was responsible not only for the FPF’s decision but also for the unusual attacks that some FPF members have launched against WikiLeaks, particularly Assange, in recent months. The most outspoken of these members has been FPF director Micah Lee, who is employed by the Omidyar-owned publication, The Intercept.

In February of last year, Lee called Assange a “rapist, liar & ally to fascists” in a tweet — despite the fact that Assange was never charged with rape, his alleged accusers have also claimed that Assange had not sexually assaulted them, and there is abundant evidence suggesting that the rape investigation was a means of ensnaring Assange to ensure his extradition to the United States. Based on Lee’s other tweets, the “ally to fascists” charge ostensibly refers to Lee’s belief that Wikileaks’ publications of emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta was done explicitly, with Assange’s blessing, to aid the Trump campaign.

Lee has also claimed that Assange is a “Putin fanboy” who doesn’t care “about government transparency if the government in question is Russia,” even though WikiLeaks has published information damaging to the Russian government while Putin was president. Lee also intimated that Assange may have a direct relationship to the Kremlin, an outlandish claim for which there is no basis.

Lee, in other tweets, has also perpetuated the “Russiagate” conspiracy in attempts to link Assange to Trump to Putin.

The day after WL attacked the journalists, Putin himself cited WL's conspiracy to dismiss the scandal.

"Besides," Putin said, "we now know from WikiLeaks that officials and state agencies in the United States are behind all this."https://t.co/N129JF5h5v

This same conspiracy theory, which has produced no concrete evidence to support its claims after more than a year, was initiated by top government officials such as the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA director Michael Morell, among others.

Other members of FPF as well as some other Intercept writers (see here and here) have echoed these claims as well, attacking Assange for allegedly siding with Trump over Clinton in the 2016 election even though Assange never declared support for Trump. Ironically, many of these same journalists have themselves proven to be very partisan in their writings and on social media, undermining the claim of Lee and others that the FPF is “non-partisan.”

Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistleblower and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, told MintPress News that the FPF has a reputation for being a “very, very partisan organization and populated with ideologues.” She further asserted that the “number one reason” for the FPF’s decision was directly related to Wikileaks’ releases in 2016, namely the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails.

Edmonds added :

Assange violated their criteria and this is basically their pay-back. All of the individuals [on the FPF] are known to be ideologues, are into this game of divide and conquer. Their role is to represent the left and Julian Assange challenged this. Before the election, many of the members of this organization supported Assange. It’s important to ask why this changed over night.”

Despite the slander and demonstrably false claims, other FPF members who have historically defended WikiLeaks and Assange were silent regarding Lee’s accusations, including Glenn Greenwald, Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden. Though FPF members have denied that Omidyar’s influence has had a role in these attacks, as well as in the board’s decision to cut ties with WikiLeaks, a closer examination of Omidyar and his ties to the U.S. political establishment — as well as his apparent influence on some of the FPF’s most prominent members — gives credibility to WikiLeaks’ concerns.

Omidyar’s connections and agenda

Pierre Omidyar, prior to the founding of The Intercept, was known not for any commitment to journalism or free speech but rather for his connections to the U.S. government and his role in the financial blockade of WikiLeaks that began in 2010.

Indeed, publicly available records reveal Omidyar’s close connections to the U.S. political establishment. For example, Omidyar made more visits to the Obama White House between 2009 and 2013 than did Google’s Eric Schmidt, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg or Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. He has also donated $30 million to the Clinton global initiative. He directly co-invested with the State Department, funding groups – some of them overtly fascist – that worked to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014. He continues to fund USAID, particularly its overseas program aimed at “advancing U.S. national security interests” abroad.

Omidyar has a vested interest in advancing the interests of the U.S. political establishment for a variety of reasons. Sibel Edmonds, who was among the first to note Omidyar’s background upon The Intercept’s founding, noted that the PayPal executive “has been in bed with the CIA and NSA” and even the Department of Defense — further noting that the Snowden documents that The Intercept, and thus Omidyar, controls “contain information about PayPal’s direct partnership not only with the Treasury Department but also the CIA.”

Edmonds further stated that Greenwald had confirmed Omidyar’s long-running partnership with the CIA and other government agencies on Twitter during a heated exchange between the two in 2013.

Omidyar is also well-connected to Snowden’s former employer Booz Allen Hamilton, a major government contractor known as the “world’s most profitable spy organization,” whose former executives include James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, and Michael McConnell, former Director of the NSA. Omidyar’s Ulupono Initiative, a venture capital fund that operates in his home state of Hawaii, cosponsors one of the Pentagon’s most important contractor expos, in which Booz Allen Hamilton – and the Department of Defense – have a major stake. In addition, a former Booz Allen Hamilton vice president, Kyle Datta, is General Partner of Omidyar’s Ulupono Initiative.

Also striking was Omidyar’s decision to accept Snowden’s former boss at Booz Allen Hamilton, Robert Lietzke, into the Omidyar Fellows program in 2015 after personally interviewing Lietzke as part of the program’s application process. What was unusual in Lietzke’s case was that Omidyar also oversees The Intercept, which has exclusive publishing rights over the Snowden cache – which was taken from under Lietzke’s nose at Booz Allen Hamilton by his former employee, Edward Snowden. Snowden himself has remained silent on Omidyar’s decision, despite the mixed signals it sent and continues to serve as the president of the FPF — which, as mentioned, is also funded by Omidyar.

The Intercept was founded in 2014 with some $250 million in seed money from Omidyar. Its first hires were Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the only journalists in possession of the full Snowden cache. According to former Intercept writers, Omidyar – despite funding and founding an enterprise dedicated to “fearless” and “adversarial” journalism – is “shockingly [un]interested in the actual journalism” of the paper. If this portrayal of Omidyar’s interest — or rather, lack of interest — in journalism is accurate, it is strange that he would also fund organizations — like the FPF, the Center for Public Integrity, and ProPublica — ostensibly dedicated to investigative journalism, transparency, and the First Amendment.

Omidyar’s supposed devotion is also hard to square with the fact that he and PayPal were a major part of the financial blockade against WikiLeaks, which – as mentioned above – deprived WikiLeaks of 95% of its revenue at the time. Though Omidyar –- and now the FPF -– have argued that the blockade has long been lifted, WikiLeaks has publicly disagreed, maintaining that it remains in effect. Interestingly, when Omidyar was asserting that the blockade had ended, the FPF – at the time – had also publicly disagreed with his assessment and claimed that the blockade was still in full effect.

Omidyar has also, in the past, been rather candid about his views on leakers. He asserted in 2009 that organizations that publish stolen — or leaked — information “should help catch the thief” and shouldn’t publish such information in the first place. Omidyar even defended this view after The Intercept’s founding and refused to speak in “absolutes” about whether or not a source should be turned in — a troubling perspective to have in light of The Intercept’s debacle in the Reality Winner case.

@loic I said ystrdy: @techcrunch and anybody else who pubs stolen info should help catch the thief. Shldnt pub in the 1st place.

What then caused him to create The Intercept, only a few years after making that assertion? Given Omidyar’s connections to the U.S. government, particularly the NSA, and top government contractors, including Snowden’s former employer, it was likely an effort to privatize and thus thwart or slow the publication of the Snowden leaks in which PayPal is allegedly implicated — and not a sudden change of heart.

Edmonds went a step further, stating that:

The Intercept is a continuation of that blockade [of WikiLeaks]. [It] was set up with that purpose. Specifically, it was set up to block true, real information and put forth narrative that has already gotten the approval of special interests including the U.S. government. It made perfect sense for him [Omidyar] to move from that to setting up a news organization and posing as an outlet for investigative reports depending on whistleblowers.”

The fine line between curation and censorship

Omidyar’s view on leaks and leakers seem to have influenced the opinions of some of the FPF’s most prominent members. For instance, Glenn Greenwald, following the publication of the Podesta emails, suggested in a conversation with Naomi Klein that the Podesta emails should have been “curated” prior to their release in order to prevent the outing of potentially sensitive personal information. Specifically, Greenwald stated: “I think WikiLeaks more or less at this point stands alone in believing that these kinds of dumps are ethically — never mind journalistically — just ethically, as a human being, justifiable.”

Listen to Greenwald’s conversation with Naomi Klein

The idea of “curation” in the publication of leaked documents is quizzical. Though one’s privacy is important, it is highly problematic to leave to one person the ability to decide what is and what isn’t in the public interest. “Curating” leaks gives those who are in possession of the leaked documents the power to decide what the public sees and doesn’t see instead of giving the public the right to decide what is relevant. In many cases, finding a “balance point” would present a challenge to even the most ethical and disinterested curator. Such power can easily be abused and used to shield key information contained in leaks or to hide crucial context.

For example, in the case of Chelsea Manning, Wired journalist Kevin Poulsen published parts of the chat logs between Manning and former hacker Adrian Lamo in which Manning allegedly admitted having given the leaked documents to WikiLeaks. However, Poulsen published only a quarter of the correspondence, claiming that he had not released the remainder as it contained “personal information” and “national security secrets” — concerns that were also raised upon the release of the DNC and Podesta emails.

Yet, the information Poulsen chose not to publish contained crucial context that showed that Manning leaked the documents to instigate reforms and inform the public – not to “cripple the United States’ foreign relations for the foreseeable future,” as Lamo had suggested in interviews before the chat logs’ full release. Ironically, it was Glenn Greenwald who publicly skewered Poulsen for journalistic malice.

However, Poulsen was merely “curating” the logs as he saw fit – albeit with the agenda of protecting Adrian Lamo, his long-time associate. Three years later, Greenwald found himself in a position similar to that of Poulsen when he came into possession of the Snowden leaks and became the “curator” of this collection. Now, nearly four years after receiving the cache, less than 2 percent of the estimated 58,000 files have been made public. If the releases continue at this snail’s pace, most of those reading this article will have been dead long before the Snowden cache is made fully public.

Perhaps this is why Greenwald, despite possessing hundreds of thousands of secret government documents he received from Snowden, has been able to travel to and from the United States without issue. Edmonds pointed this out, stating that “after Greenwald worked with so many whistleblowers and even though he has technically ‘aided and abetted’ this supposed illegal, major leak, he’s not touched. He can come and go [from the United States] as he pleases.” Meanwhile, Julian Assange has remained arbitrarily detained in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years, unable to leave.

Also troubling is that Snowden – the man who ostensibly risked his life and freedom to make this information public – has offered no complaints concerning the glacial pace of the documents’ release, nor about Omidyar essentially taking ownership of the leaks through The Intercept.

Former NSA Intelligence Analyst and Capabilities Operations Officer Russell Tice once said the following regarding The Intercept and its possession of the Snowden leaks:

I would be outraged and highly vocal if I were in Edward Snowden’s shoes. For a journalist whom I had placed my trust in to go and withhold documents meant for the public?! For the journalist to make fortune and fame based on my sacrifices and disclosure?! Forming a lucrative business partnership with entities who have direct conflicts of interest?! No. That wouldn’t have been acceptable.”

It’s possible that Snowden himself may approve of what has amounted to the censoring of these leaks, as he has also called for the “curation” of leaked material following the release of the Podesta emails. Unsurprisingly, this drew a sharp response from WikiLeaks.

Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.

While Edmonds has made the case that Omidyar likely founded The Intercept to clamp down on the Snowden leaks before they could cause further damage to the U.S. government — or to his own business — another motivating factor could well have been a desire to surreptitiously continue his blockade against WikiLeaks, but by different and more easily concealed means.

Omidyar certainly isn’t the only PayPal linked billionaire involved in such efforts to undermine and discredit WikiLeaks. As Part II of this investigative series will show, Peter Thiel — a PayPal co-founder with close ties to the Trump administration — has also been involved in the creation of an “attack plan” that seeks to undermine WikiLeaks through a media disinformation campaign and by working to turn WikiLeaks’ former allies against it. Given the FPF’s recent decision and the attacks levied against WikiLeaks by Intercept writers, this plan seems to be well underway.

Correction: a previous version of this article stated that Pierre Omidyar is a co-founder of PayPal. While he did not found PayPal, he acquired it when eBay bought PayPal in 2002.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News. She has written for several news organizations in both English and Spanish; her stories have been featured on ZeroHedge, the Anti-Media, and 21st Century Wire among others. She currently resides in Southern Chile.

Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are
republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in
these
articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

“WikiLeaks, the transparency organization known for publishing leaked documents”

..founded and headed by Julain Assange, who lost all credibility with his repeated attacks on, and denials of, the inescapable truth that 9/11-anthrax attacks were a domestic crime, however many other international actors may have been involved. I mean, it is only the watershed event of our time. No reason we should we expect someone like Julian Assange to be honest about it, especially given how ambiguous the evidence is. /sarcasm

Snowden, although he has not attacked nor denied the obvious, has none-the-less remained silent about it, defying any semblance of plausibility for a “patriot” “concerned about government overreach & tyranny.” As if there is no elephant in the room. As such, both fail the Litrmus Test for truth in our time.

“The most effective way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” -Lenin.

A very important piece that ought to be read by everyone who takes seriously freedom of speech and journalistic integrity. Glenn Greenwald sold out to naked self-interest when he signed up with Omidayr’s Intercept and agreed to “curate” the Snowden leaks into irrelevance. Snowden’s role in all this puzzles but he always was a conservative patriot who ultimately sees the United States as a force for good if only it would abide by the constitution. This seems to me a shockingly naive, or delusional, position given the death and mayhem caused by the US military and intelligence services across the globe.

The demonizing of Wikileaks and Julian Assange is straight out of the divide and rule playbook and watching all these media activist types gleefully take part in this charade is disheartening. A person who only gets information from the MSM is now fed a completely warped and distorted picture of Wikileaks and Assange. Most news consumers are already convinced he is a rapist on the run from justice and there are no longer any mainstream voices who challenge that lie.

I do have a quibble with Sibel Edmonds’ assertion that:

“Their role [the FPF’s] is to represent the left and Julian Assange challenged this.”

What is this left of which she speaks? A left that includes imperialist war criminals like HRC and Obama and is financed by billionaire libertarian capitalists like Pierre Omidayr is not left in any meaningful way. Unless Edmonds is linking herself to the American right, alt- or otherwise, who (mis)use leftist terminology as partisan terms of abuse she ought to consider joining the majority world and call the neoliberal capitalist Democrat imperialists what they actually are: neoliberal imperialists who are joined at the hip with their imperialist neocon buddies. Using gender and race to shame people while denouncing class politics as “brocialism” and demonizing whistleblowers and anti-establishment journalists in an effort to divide and rule the proles and curry favours with the elites are not tactics employed by a genuine left.

NO JOKE: I think Jullian Assange just sent a distress call out via Randy Credico via twitter -that his life was in imminent danger. (and the warning came from North Korea, of all things?) I think it was an appeal to get public outcry for Trump / DC intervention?
I’m trying to assess credible from false info online, and would like those involved in this article or anyone else with legit info to respond.

I’ve been suspicious of the Intercept for quite some time. They did an awful hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard after she spoke out against arming the Syrian rebels. They called her an Islamophobe of all things. Of course, Reality Winner is mentioned in the article, and recently I listened to one of Scahill’s Intercepted podcasts. He was criticizing Eric Prince’s proposal to build a private intelligence network for Trump. Fair enough, I’m against such schemes as well, but he was saying the reason Trump might want one is because Trump thinks the Deep State is against him, pooh-poohing such an idea. But in an earlier podcast, he had said the Obama Admin was sometimes undermined by such forces. I used to like Jeremy, but that tells me you can’t take everything he says at face value.

Like most Americans, I disapprove of and distrust Trump. The pathology lies in defending a psychopath.

Ramone

So disapproving of and distrusting Trump means you have to approve of and trust HRC, O’Bomber and the Democrats? Gotcha. Have you considered that they are basically on the same team and the hysterical sideshow that is the media is playing you like a fiddle? If not, it’s a possibility you really ought to consider.

Julian Assange is one guy, a fallible and imperfect human being like you and me. Unlike Assange, however,our every word is not used against us by the media and we are not on the most wanted list of a nation that, among other things, tortures and assassinates its perceived enemies as a matter of course and lets the FBI entrap mentally ill drug addicts, labels them “terrorists” and disappears them into supermax jails where they lose their minds and rot away for decades, if not life. We are not confined to a foreign embassy because our releasing facts, yes FACTS, to the public detailing war crimes and illegal activity embarrassed powerful people in a rogue nation that seeks nothing less world domination and the destruction of any person who opposes it. You are either incredibly naive or blinded by the partisan guff the media feeds you and you dutifully repeat here verbatim. What you are doing is in effect defending one side in a mafia dispute.

dale ruff

It is; Assange admitted he had material in an interview with Megyn Kelley on Fox News, his news outlet. Here’s why he didn’t release it: he hates Clinton and wanted to crush her.

“Julian Assange’s Hatred of Hillary Clinton Was No Secret. His Advice …https://theintercept.com/…/wikileaks-julian-assange-donald-trump-jr-hillary-clinton/
Nov 15, 2017 – Some longtime supporters of Julian Assange were appalled when his secret correspondence with the Trump campaign was revealed this week. … Pointing to a message from WikiLeaks sent on Election Day, advising Trump to refuse to concede and claim the election was rigged…..”

“WikiLeaks’ Assange to Clinton: ‘Blame yourself’ for election loss | TheHill
thehill.com/homenews/news/331781-wikileaks-assange-to-clinton-blame-yourself
May 3, 2017 – Assange has long been a vocal critic of Clinton, including in 2010 when he called for her to resign as secretary of State after his organization leaked embarrassing diplomatic cables.”

I would suggest that Assange is now holding this information as a kind of insurance policy to keep Trump (or his AG) from locking him up. I explained this earlier. The leaks destroyed Clinton and brought Trump to power and now they are a weapon to be released (Trump knows what the dirt is) if Trump makes any more than a rhetorical effort to put him away.

Gmo Roberts

Or maybe like you, he just lied about it.

jo6pac

Great article and I crossed post over at Common Dreams were GG has an article today. We’ll see if they leave it up.

ohreally

Not mentioned in the article is The Intercept’s preposterous coverage of the Syrian “civil war” … from glowing coverage of White Helmets (!!) to refusing to reveal/spotlight Western backing of al Qaeda and ISIS, its coverage of Syria has revealed Intercept as a sham … no different than Daily Beast or Atlantic or WashPost or other CIA mouthpieces … (despite Greenwald’s solid pushback of the fake Russia news/hack story…)

There are all frauds. Glenn Greenwald and even Snowden. This guy was a false flag himself, with those leaks about NSA, it became normalized. Now most people don’t even think about it no more. Glenn Greenwald and his buddy Jeremy Scahill are both proven opportunists. Go check Jeremy’s work. He doesn’t miss a chance to brag about his relationship with “Marxist” scholars. His ideology doesn’t concern me though. It’s that he, Greenwald and others seem to have slowly “evolved” on the Russiagate, and now believe the Deep State’s line. They sold their soul to get those podcasts, book deals, documentaries, and jobs.

Bill Rood

Wasn’t there some talk when Snowden got to Russia that he might be useful to Russian intelligence? Oswald was sent to Russia as a double agent. Maybe Snowden was as well. Furthermore, there’s been little backlash against the NSA. Perhaps they actually wanted people to know they are listening to everything. Those who actually pay attention (and therefore might be dissenters) might be intimidated, while the oblivious will soon forget.

So Trump is ridiculed when he says he’s “wiretapped,” using the word in its broad meaning of surveillance rather than the narrow technical meaning of tapping copper wires with alligator clips. But Trump and all the rest of us are constantly wiretapped in the broad sense of the word. The data is there; the only question is whether or when someone will look at it during a fishing expeditions for political reason.

Maximus Max

Yes! By revealing to the masses just how extensively the Patriot Act authorized the NSA (and all other alphabets) to eavesdrop, nobody even cares anymore. Once they accepted it, and they noticed no impact to their life, it’s just a shrug off.

Of course they don’t seem to be very good at it either! I mean if you have er everything and your algo can’t even find a Stephen Paddock, you suck at your job.

Bill Rood

Finding terrorists was never the goal. The goal is to have dirt available on whomever they wish to selectively investigate. The whole point was to enable witch hunts on “dissidents” or anybody who happened to get into government that they were afraid they could not control.

Any dirt on Trump is available within the database. All they had to do is unmask.

You can believe you are speaking TRUTH to POWER all you want……you can even declare them to be “self evident”
( if it happens to be convenient in the moment and you need cannon fodder )…..BUT it is not the truth HERE or the
truth NOW……( and it wasn’t then, either )……because the TRUTH in the HERE AND NOW…is that your “government”
is ILLEGITIMATE…..it ignores that which is it’s claim to legitimacy……and you believe…..citing YOUR grievance….
( which is usually specific and in your perceived self interest ) actually matters. ( as you join the echo chamber that shares it. )

Does it make sense to petition the government for redress of grievances, when it is the “source and cause” of those grievances?

Is it working? for YOU?????? for ANYONE????????

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but NAMES will never hurt me.”

THAT is the TRUTH about POWER……it doesn’t suffer from a fragile ego, it can’t be embarrassed into submission
and it is IN CHARGE of the “bone breaking” mechanisms…..

In THIS COUNTRY……..that is the TRUTH about POWER…..it is tyranny and IT IS TREASON!!!!!

We now return you to your “regular” programming…..

dale ruff

This article does not explain why the most celebrated whistleblowers have refused to support Wikileaks in this controversy, as well as the fact that Assange has ties to the Trump organization (see email to Trump Jr) and while releasing damaging material on Clinton at a time calculated to do the most harm, has kept secret (Trust me, says Assange, the opposite of transparency) the material it has on Trump.
Motive: the power to be a kingmaker. Power corrupts.

Internet Content

WL can only publish what they receive—if it can be verified, is newsworthy, and as long as it has not been published anywhere else prior. Their policy of time release for maximum impact has more to do with making sure whistleblowers or leakers who were turned away by or retaliated against by ‘proper channels’ didn’t risk their lives to inform the public of malfeasance, war crimes, waste, disregard for constitutional jurisdiction, and legitimate authority to govern based on legitimate informed consent over something that gets mediocre attention.

dale ruff

No one has accused WL of not publishing what they have NOT received, so you are creating a straw man to defend the fact that Assange makes the decision based on what he receives whether to publish or not, which is a form of Trust Me, a betrayal of transparency. His reason for not publishing the Trump dirt was it was no worse than what Trump was saying (ie it was NOT the same), which as with “Russia, are you listening…..:” was excused as a “joke.”
Wikileaks can publish what it has and let US be the judge of whether it is worthwhile. Trusting Assange, with his power to punish or spare, is trusting power, and power should NOT be trusted but challenged. I challenge Wikileaks to publish the material it has on Trump and stop being the Keeper of Secrets. This can be done without endangering anyone.
Wikileaks has lost its trust because it played a partisan role in helping elect Trump. No amount of spin can undo that damage.
Assange admitted he had material on Trump in an interview with Kelly on Fox News. It is revealing that his US outlet is now Fox News, the pro-Trump propaganda organ. Power corrupts, and Assange is paying the price for using his power, as he boasted in an earlier interview about the ability to take down a candidate with leaks (in this case, selective), to play kingmaker. Attacking his critics does not address his own corruption and complicity.

Radguy1

” I challenge Wikileaks to publish the material it has on Trump and stop being the Keeper of Secrets”

Presumably there’s all these other platforms such as “OpenLeaks” started by DomShitBerg that the original leaker can got to with the extra message that Wikileaks *didn’t* publish their leaks.

Why make your appeal to Wikileaks when the original leaker can go elsewhere?

Given that this is an oft trotted out argument, there must be a leaker out there repressed by Wikileaks.

When do you think we’ll hear from them and if not why not?

I look forward to your conjecture.

Adam Kraft

What Trump dirt is WL holding?

dale ruff

I answered that very stupid question. No one knows except the person who provided it and Assange because it is being kept secret. How can you ask such an absurd question?

Adam Kraft

Sure you did

Shrewd Fallstar

Then the leaker would simply find another outlet.

Marko

” This article does not explain why the most celebrated whistleblowers have refused to support Wikileaks in this controversy…. ”

Most celebrated by who ? You ? Or perhaps there’s some widely-accepted list of names that you can point us to ?

If you’re referring to Snowden and Ellsberg , the article does offer a plausible explanation for their apparent absence of support :

” Despite the slander and demonstrably false claims, other FPF members who have historically defended WikiLeaks and Assange were silent regarding Lee’s accusations, including Glenn Greenwald, Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden. Though FPF members have denied that Omidyar’s influence has had a role in these attacks, as well as in the board’s decision to cut ties with WikiLeaks, a closer examination of Omidyar and his ties to the U.S. political establishment — as well as his apparent influence on some of the FPF’s most prominent members — gives credibility to WikiLeaks’ concerns. ”

The absence of support in this case doesn’t negate the acknowledged historical support they – and other whistleblowers – have shown for Assange / Wikileaks ( e.g. , see link below ). They may have felt that FPF was too valuable to subject to the controversy that would have resulted from their active defense of Assange.

John Kiriakou said this Whitney Webb article is nonsense. He has also called Sibel Edmonds a dangerous nut.

Jack The⚡︎Ripper

Did he really say that? I mean, can you provide some link or source, where I can check that? Thnx!

Bob Beal

You’re too scary.

dale ruff

Dodger!

paz_y_justicia

…the fact that Assange has ties to the Trump organization (see email to Trump Jr)

Which email Dale?

Adam Kraft

That was #3 on Trump’s first annual fake news awards…where CNN (and others) botched the date on an email from (?) to Jr., falsely claiming Team Trump had ‘sneak peek’ access to WL. A page right out of the Stone / Bannon ‘professional hacks’ playbook.

dale ruff

Do you dispute there was contact between WL and Trump Jr.. asking for favors? A mistaken date does not refute that fact…..a fact because Trump Jr. released the contacts. You are in deep denial looking for any excuse to deny what is public knowledge.

Adam Kraft

It was an email from someone to look at the WL site. The falsified date suggested collision. It’s more of the same BS. I don’t know your angle but I do know I’m not interested

dale ruff

You don’t want to face the facts so you pretend not to care. Sad.

“The Secret Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and …https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the…trump-jr-and…/545738/
Nov 13, 2017 – The Secret Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks. The transparency organization asked the president’s son for his cooperation—in sharing its work, in contesting the results of the election, and in arranging for Julian Assange to be Australia’s ambassador to the United States.”

” Donald Trump Jr. had multiple online conversations during the 2016 presidential campaign with WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that last year released a hacked trove of Democrats’ emails, according to four congressional officials.

Mr. Trump, the president’s son, in recent weeks handed over Twitter messages he exchanged with WikiLeaks to several congressional committees investigating Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election, according to the officials. In September, Mr. Trump acknowledged in a closed-door interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had corresponded with the group during the campaign, the officials said.

Your evidence is an article by an anti-Russian “journalist” who was fired from Politco for tweeting that Trump was having sex with his daughter and unethically edited the wikileaks correspondence with Trump Jr. Furthermore, no collusion or illegal activity is demonstrated.

On the other hand, it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the DNC and Clinton colluded with Russians via the Steele dossier, lied about it, and in the process broke Federal election law… a crime punishable with jail time.

The sooner you and your coalition of the deluded come to terms with the fact that you voted for a war criminal the sooner you will be at peace with your transgressions. Now go play PokeMan Go and save us from Russian space invaders.

dale ruff

Just read you ugly first sentence and decided to block you. We don’t need more ugliness,troll.

paz_y_justicia

Good for you Dale.

Magic Bombs

Excellent article. I mean, this is genuine meat to the bone journalism! It clarifies so much about those pretending to be journalists like Greenwald.

dale ruff

And Ellsberg and Snowden? If Assange is the only true hero of transparency, why is he keeping secret the material (admitted on Fox News, his new go-to media outlet) on Trump while dumping the Clinton dirt to crush her in the election? The champion of transparency, in his abuse of the power this earned him, is now the keeper of secrets.

Magic Bombs

Assuming there’s dirt on Trump. Where is that coming from? The only dirt on Trump is his alliance with Israel. They all bow to Israel.

Aside from that, what dirt on Trump do you think Wikileaks is sitting on? Perhaps there was a deal struck to allow Assange to leave the Equador embassy in London, yes? I’d make that deal in a heartbeat to gain my freedom if that’s what Assange had to do to be free from persecution. But educate me as to specific dirt you believe Wikileaks is withholding.

dale ruff

You doubt there is damaging information on Trump when 29 woman have alleged sexual misbehavior, he has lost fraud suits (Trump U while President), failed to pay contractors, had dealings with mobsters, and asked Russia to intervene to crush Clinton on his behalf?
Assange admitted he had information on Trump in the Fox interview with Megyn Kelley but said he would not release it because it was no worse than Trump’s public statements. Later, he said it was because the information did not meet “editorial standards.”
It is no secret that Assange hated Clinton and was out to destroy her. By releasing the info on her but holding back the Trump info, he had a huge effect on reducing the large Clinton lead of 15 points to 8 points, during a time when Trump was fighting the release of his pussy-grabbing admission of sexual assault.
Trump has a history of burying the dirt through law suits and non-disclosure forms. He has mastered the art of corruption using legal means to intimidate or overwhelm lesser victims. What dirt does WL have? How should I know: the whole point of keeping secrets is to cover up the truth. Telling me to reveal the secrets that Assange is keeping is an absurd request.
Why don’t you urge Assange to publish what he has rather than asking those who are not privy to tell you what the dirt is.
It could be from sexual misbehavior, Russian mobster connections, knowledge of Russian hacking, and many other nefarious matters. I do not know what the secrets are because Assange won’t release the information.
I will tell you this. I think, now that Trump, who won because of the WL intervention, has turned against him (remember when Trump, watching as WL ruined Clinton, proclaimed “I love Wikileaks?”), I suspect he is withholding the Trump material as insurance against being locked up by the US. The insurance policy would read: if you move to take me down, I will release the information that will take you down. Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

You really need to get over it. Trump won and he is our man for the next seven years.

Magic Bombs

He done ranned away….

Postkey

“It is no secret that Assange hated Clinton and was out to destroy her.”

Lucky that he did?

During the election campaign H.R.C., three times, {stupidly?} threatened to impose a ‘no fly zone’ in Syria – confronting a nuclear armed power.

dale ruff

To those who say well Thank you Vlad ad Julia for defeating Clinton, I would say:
1. Trump has escaleted 7 wars
2. Relations with Russia are at the “lowest point since the Cold War
3. HRC negotiated a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia; Trump is building up nucear
4.HRC proposed a no-fly zone in Syria; Trump attacked Syria
5.Trump threatened to nuke North Korea and is seeking a pretext to bomb Tehran.

Thank God that war-monger Clinton was crushed by Putin/Assange.

ohreally

the no-fly zone HRC proposed WAS an attempt to start a war there you dummy … and yes Trump attacked Syria, and he’s acting up there again, but this is because he’s been co-opted by the deep state (he has no core principles … but neither does HRC) … as for relations with Russia being at an all-time low, wtf do you think is responsible for this? Trump?

Postkey

“Over and over and over again this alleged Russian asset has been choosing to undermine Moscow instead of advancing its interests. He approved the sale of arms to Ukraine, a move loudly encouraged by DC neocons which Obama refused to do because of the dangerous tensions it would inflame with Russia. His administration forced first RT and now Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigning established Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shutting down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and throwing out Russian diplomats as part of continued back-and-forth hostile diplomatic exchanges, and signing the Russian sanctions bill despite loud protests from Moscow. If he is indeed an expensive Russian asset, then Russia got ripped off.”

You are quoting Caitlin Johnstone, who conflates Russian interventon with Trump being a Russian asset. You don’t have to believe the latter to accept the former. Trump is arming Ukraine under extreme pressure from the neo-cons he appointed. He is less an asset than a tool.

Postkey

“Trump is arming Ukraine under extreme pressure from the neo-cons he appointed. He is less an asset than a tool.”
Quite right.

dale ruff

For all her tough talk, she negotiated a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia which Trump is shredding. Relations with Russia are now worse than when she was in office. As for arming Ukraine, she probably would have but Trump was paid (by Adelson, who gave him 25 million to have the “arm Ukraine” provision taken out of the Republican platform) has agreed to arm Ukraine after saying he wouldn’t.

In Dante’s Inferno, there is one rung below the rung for those who bring violence, reserved for those like Trump who promise peace and bring violence (ie hypocrisy plus violence).

So, looking at the objective facts, HRC negotiated de-escalation of the nuclear arms race while Trump has promoted it.

Postkey

Looking at ‘objective facts’ H.R.C. invaded and destroyed Libya and allowed arms from Libya to be exported to terrorists.

dale ruff

True. I despise her. But Trump has gone beyond HRC in attacking
Syria, a miitary ally of Russia thus risking war with his favorite nation and killing 40,000 civilians in Mosel and playing brinksmanship with North Korea, risking nuclear war.

Why do people think opposing Trump means you support Clinton? I personally despise both but see Trump as even more dangerous and lacking popular support, a candidate to start a war to rally the troops silence dissent. He has already escalated 7 wars, committed war crimes against Syria, has permanent US occupation of Northern Syria, is seeking pretext to bomb Tehran (military ally of Iraq,Russia, and China), and threatened to nuke North Korea, while tearing up the SaltTreaty HRC negotiated and bringing relations with Russia to “the lowest point since the Cold War.”

Trump is also tearing up efforts to combat climate change, a grave peril to all humanity.

It’s not either/or…………it’s opposing both and recognizing that Trump, due to his mental deformity, is a risk of starting WWIII far beyond the war crimes of Clinton. IMHO.

I voted for neither.

dale ruff

Maybe it was, but Trump actually attacked ‘Syria, a war crime. So you present a possibility and Trump presents an actuality. Now he has a permanent US occupation of
Syria, another war crime. The case for Trump over HRC is to prefer a war criminal to a potential war criminal.

dale ruff

One more stupid insult from you and I will block you.

Jack The⚡︎Ripper

Well… Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Haiti, Honduras… Hillary Clinton has left a long trail of blood and suffering around the world and a clear record of exploitation and greed in her own country- just check the public record of your ‘lesser evil’ Hillary Clinton and you’ll see that hers is a standard to which Trump can only aspire.

dale ruff

I believe Iraq is owned by Bush and Cheney. Trump has already committed a war crime against Syria by attacking it, and he has escalated 7 wars and threatened to nuke North Korea and is itching to attack Tehran. I am not defending Clinton, so changing the subject to her vile policies does not excuse Trump, who already has gone far beyond Clinton (who, by the way, was not the President) in escalations, threats, and as for bloodshed, his attacks on ISIS in Mosel killed 40,000 innocent people. And he is just started………………..

After the WL dumps, as Trump struggled with pussy-grabbing, the Clinton lead of 15 points fell to 8 (and fell to 2 after the FBI intervention). Minus these interventions, HRC (for whom I did NOT vote) would have won in a landslide.

Kobach is a fraud and is gone. The Voter Integrity Commission has been disbanded. His claims have been totally debunkedThe ;penalty for voter fraud is 10 year,which is why it is so rare.

Postkey

“Kobach is a fraud and is gone. The Voter Integrity Commission has been disbanded. His claims have been totally debunkedThe ;penalty for voter fraud is 10 year,which is why it is so rare.”
From this comment you obviously missed the point.

Magic Bombs

Thanks for proving you are a complete idiot. Never heard of the Uranium One scandal involving Hillary, Mueller? The extensive FISA court abuse against Trump used to monitor foreign agents? Trump is a foreign agent? Because of Hillary’s paid for Pee Pee Dossier proven to be false and the origins of Trump’s Russiagate but was Hillary all along meeting with Putin to set up the Uranium One deal. Not hearing about that? That’s just for starters. All you got is ooga booga from TV people. You’re so sad and pathetic.

I am blocking you for lack of civility, personal insults, and trolling. Adios.

Gmo Roberts

Blocking yourself again then?

Magic Bombs

Aw, little one. You cut and ranned away. The TV people have ruined your mind. You’ve allowed them to do your thinking. You had to run because facing facts might explode the fixed ideas and narratives very sick TV people fed you 24/7. You didn’t go out into the sunshine to look around, breathe the air, scan the scope and breadth of the sky, the stars, the universe to touch the face of God. You dwell in a TV people matrix of madness and consumerism. BTW I knew you wouldn’t listen to the Charles Ortel case against the Clinton charitable fraud involving billions of not trillions in “donations” from people who love to be provided with very little children to sexually abuse and murder operating above all laws. The Clintons corrupted everyone and everything; buying their protection for decades. But you are a slave to TV and all the screaming actors scream out narratives calculated to drive people like you mad. So mad you’re terrified of reality — realities I’ve written about prior. Trump is president. Obama committed against the Constitution he swore to uphold to get an illegal FISA warrant to spy on Trump as a foreign agent when the actual foreign agents were Hillary Clinton meeting with Putin to sell 20% of all US uranium to Putin. Hillary Clinton is a foreign influence. She co-opted the DNC, undermined Bernie Sanders, had Seth Rich murdered for leaking DNC documents to Wikileaks. Hillary Clinton is communism through the back door. She pushes the homosexual agenda through the use of psychology — made up narratives to be believed as truth and fact while obscuring the actual facts that would land her in jail or on death row.

You’re a one-eyed Clintonista. It doesn’t matter what WL DOESN’T publish; it only matters that what WL publishses is ACCURATE .And it is. WL has NEVER been found to have published faked content. Not once. As for your ludicrous expectation that WL will publish what it doesn’t have, LOL you need a course in basic rational thinking (or to change your meds)

The recent devastating car bombing in Mogadishu has been blamed by Somali officials on the terrorist group al-Shabab. But the violence (and famine) that have beset Somalia have deeper roots — decades of imperialism and intervention, and use of Somalia as a staging grounds for the “war on terror.”

Buried among statistics on gun profits and lobbying efforts is the terrifying reality of just how unique America’s gun obsession and associated violence are. And the equally terrifying plan by the NRA to “normalize” gun possession in nearly every nook and cranny of American life.

U.S. campaigns for regime change characteristically focus on the “madness” of the “dictators” to be toppled. In the case of North Korea, the narrative is spiced by the country’s developing nuclear capabilities — which North Korea views as its main line of defense against . . . regime change.

Aung Su Kyi, the leader of Myanmar, has been accused of “legitimizing genocide” against the country’s Rohingya Muslims, despite being a Nobel Prize laureate. Her country’s military has massacred thousands of Rohingya, leading some to call for Kyi’s Nobel Prize to be revoked.